Tag: great lakes

Systemic Threats to Great Lakes Demand an Immediate Paradigm Shift to Water as Commons Protected By Public Trust

Published on February 24th, 2014 by - H2Olson

Pursuant to his recent publication in The Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, the following are some thoughts from Jim Olson on the importance of the public trust doctrine at this time in history.

Systemic Threats to Great Lakes Demand an Immediate Paradigm Shift to Water as Commons Protected By Public Trust

“We forget that the water cycle and the life cycle are one.” – Jack Cousteau

The systemic threats to the Great Lakes water, like the “dead zone” covering nearly one-third of western Lake Erie, with alarming algal blooms extending along the bays and shores of Lake Michigan, call for immediate action by state governments. That action is demanded by the public trust doctrine.

This ancient legal principle is alive and well in the Great Lakes, and places a fiduciary duty on states to prevent subordination or impairment of the public rights of use and enjoyment of these waters, and the waters and ecosystem that support them.

The states have been called the “sworn guardians” of this trust in the same way a bank trustee is accountable to its beneficiaries. If we demand and act to assure the integrity of these waters using the public trust principle as the benchmark, we will start making the right decisions about water, energy, food, transportation, and communities.

It’s a threatening time with the Great Lakes facing a critical mass of issues such as algal blooms, invasive species like Asian Carp, sewage overflows, threatened diversions, climate change and extreme water levels, overuse and waste from such water-intensive uses as crops, fracking, or poor urban infrastructure. But is an exciting time, with an open slate of new choices for our communities, businesses, farming and food, careers and jobs, transportation, and economy. In this century the public trust principles offer a unifying pathway or beacon to help us get there.

More and more biologists, hydrologists, and other scientists have documented that the billions of dollars spent worldwide in the past several decades to protect crucial conservation lands, international and national parks, wilderness, and biologically significant areas may be futile. The data shows all of the Earth’s natural systems are decline, despite our best efforts. This is because pollution, waste, and the effects of globally harmful practices like climate change or the release of hazardous substances do not know political or legal boundaries.

It is also because these larger systemic or massive harms have overwhelmed not only water and ecosystems but our twentieth century legal framework. Regulation by permit for every drop that is discharged to a sediment basin, treatment plant, lake or stream may have worked for specific place at a given time. But the fact is that these regulations have legalized lesser amounts of pollution or higher amounts of water losses and waste than watersheds and larger ecosystems like the Great Lakes can withstand.

For example, the International Joint Commission has documented and called for adaptive management practices to respond to the extreme changes in water level caused by climate change. Scientists, including those studying global warming, ice cover, precipitation, and evaporation, have documented that climate change is resulting in droughts with exponentially harmful effects on water levels and impacts on wetlands, streams, lakes, biological systems, fish, and habitat. Data shows a direct connection between the “dead zone” caused by non-point run off of phosphorous and nutrients into Lake Erie. The phosphorous combined with warmer water temperatures, clearer water from invasive species, to produce a toxic algal bloom covering nearly one-third of Lake Erie, closing beaches, killing fish, damaging fisheries, swimming, boating and recreation. These same blooms have been showing up in Michigan’s Saginaw Bay and Wisconsin’s Green Bay. Then there are the quagga mussels and hundreds of other invasive species, including the threat of Asian Carp that would alter and potentially wipe out a billion dollar fishery in the Great Lakes.

“Extreme energy” – massive, intensive, unconventional desecration of water, nature, and communities – is another example. As the global water crisis and droughts around the North America and the world intensify, there will be increasing demand to force water out of the Great Lakes basin to the southwest, the oil and gas development fields in the west, or to grow crops here to export food to drought or water-poor countries like China and the Middle East – so-called “virtual water.” Demands for diversions and exports of food and water will run up against demands for water for industries, food, urban areas, and recreation – all the backbone of our economy.

A dramatic example is the unfolding drama over the expanding use of pipelines and shipments of oil and natural gas from the Alberta tar sands and North Dakota heavy oil and natural gas through and over the Great Lakes region. Canada proposes two double the volume of tar sands oil the Alberta Clipper – Line 67 – will transport to Superior, Wisconsin on Lake Superior. From there a much dirtier, heavier oil with bitumen may be transported through Line 5 across Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, under the Mackinac Straits of Lake Huron and Lake Michigan, down through Michigan and under the St. Clair River to Sarnia. A spill under the best response conditions would cover 25 square miles of the Straits area. A spill from a ship carrying heavy oil would have equally decimating impacts.

So what framework and legal principles will work to save the Great Lakes and the rights and interests of the 40 million people who live around the largest freshwater surface water system in the world – 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water? The public trust doctrine and its set of discrete principles that have protected water from private control and abuse for over 1,500 years.

  1. Public trust waters cannot be subordinated or transferred to the primary or exclusive control of private interests and gain.
  2. Public trust waters and the right of public use and enjoyment cannot be significantly impaired from one generation to the next.
  3. The states and provinces of Canada have a fiduciary duty to account to and assure their citizens that principles 1 and 2 have not and will not be violated.

These are the benchmarks for everything we face and how we should decide what is acceptable and what is not in terms of living up to the public trust doctrine. What’s been hard for sometime, that is until these recent systemic threats, is to understand that these waters and their management by states as trustees are commons, not private property. Markets and concepts of private property apply to private things. Public trust principles apply to common public things. It’s that simple. If we take to understand what is happening, and apply these benchmarks, we, our children and grandchildren will share in the same enjoyment and as we have in these waters held and managed under a solemn perpetual trust.

If you want to read about the history and principles under the public trust doctrine that apply to the Great Lakes basin in the U.S. and Canada, read the article in full, click here, or for reprints or hard copies of the article, contact Vermont  Journal of Environmental Law editor Emily Remmel or visit vjel.vermontlaw.edu.

For more, read the press release here.

Postscript

As Maude Barlow puts it in her new book Blue Future: Protecting the Planet for People and the Planet Forever (The New Press 2013), “Olson writes in the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, ‘a possible answer is the immediate adoption of a new narrative, with principles grounded in science, values, and policy, that views the systemic threats we face as part of the single connected hydrological whole, a commons governed by public trust principles.’ He goes on to say:  ‘[t]he public trust is necessary to solve these threats that directly impact traditional public trust resources. The most obvious whole is not a construct of the mind, but the one in which we live – the hydrosphere, basin, and watersheds through which water flows, evaporates, transpires, is used, transferred, and is discharged [and recharged] in a continuous cycle. Every arc of the water cycle flows through and is affected by everything else, reminiscent of what Jacques Cousteau once said, ‘We forget that the water cycle and the life cycle are one.'”

Jim Olson Pens Seminal Article on Public Trust in the Great Lakes

Published on February 24th, 2014 by - Reports & Media Releases

Click here to view and download the full press release as a PDF

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Contact: Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director
liz@flowforwater.org or 231-944-1568

FLOW Founder Pens Seminal Article on Public Trust in the Great Lakes

“All Aboard” in Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

TRAVERSE CITY, MI – FLOW Founder and veteran water attorney Jim Olson has recently published his latest article about the public trust in the Great Lakes. The seminal article “All Aboard: Navigating the Course for Universal Adoption of the Public Trust” appears in the Spring 2014 edition of the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law (Volume 15, Issue 2, p. 135-191). It is also available online at: http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/files/2014/01/Issue-2_Olson.pdf.

Olson, (LL.M., University of Michigan, 1977; J.D., Detroit College of Law (Michigan State University College of Law) 1971) is a Traverse City-based water and public interest lawyer with expertise in public trust backed by 40 years of litigation. Named the 2010 Champion of Justice by the State Bar of Michigan for his work defending water in the public interest as the plaintiff attorney in the Nestlé bottling plant lawsuit in Mecosta County, Olson is the Great Lakes Basin’s preeminent legal expert on matters of protecting and conserving water as a common and public resource.

“All Aboard” not only thoroughly reviews and confirms the viability of the public trust doctrine in each of the Great Lakes Basin states and two Canadian provinces, but also inspires and charts the way for leaders and citizens to affirm and apply the public trust to stem the systemic threats to the Great Lakes. The article proposes an integrative commons framework for understanding and finding solutions to problems affecting water at every phase of its hydrologic cycle. The article underscores the rich potential for invoking the public trust as an overarching policy tactic to effectively address and solve the systemic and large-scale threats to the health of the Great Lakes, including climate change, algal blooms, pollution, exports, and privatization.

What’s more, the public trust is a versatile legal lens to analyze policy problems because, as Olson outlines, “[t]he public trust doctrine—or at least its principles—offer a legal construct to integrate our understanding of energy production, food systems, and climate change with the hydrologic cycle” (139). This “nexus” of overlapping concerns—water, energy, food, and climate change—is a new set of issues in the 21st Century that 20th Century laws and policies aren’t equipped to address. Olson’s decades of experience invoking the public trust as a legal means for closing that gap is reflected in the depth and breadth of the “All Aboard” article.

“Each Great Lakes Basin state and province has, in their own way, a clear legal obligation under the public trust to ensure that the Lakes’ water is protected,” says Olson. “It is both feasible and necessary for governments across the board to recognize that the public trust is their tool for solving the problems that elude existing policies that are still letting things like algal blooms and extreme water levels slip through the cracks,” he says.

“All Aboard” published in the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law (Volume 15, Issue 2, p. 135-191) in February 2014. The Vermont Journal of Environmental Law was founded in 1996 with support from Vermont Law School’s Environmental Law Center. The Journal is a student-run organization that publishes articles on topics in the environmental field quarterly.

Through Olson’s nonprofit Great Lakes policy and education center FLOW, Olson will help to bridge the ideas of “All Aboard” and share them beyond the academic and law sphere. “It’s important that both decision-makers and citizens are informed about the utility of the public trust and its empowering potential as a legal solution,” says Olson. Olson blogs about the public trust regularly on FLOW’s website at https://forloveofwater.org/soundings-blog/.

FLOW’s mission is to advance public trust solutions to save the Great Lakes, and its policy and education programs focus on empowering decision-makers and citizens with legal strategies and tools for addressing water, energy, food, and climate change issues affecting the Great Lakes. Olson’s “All Aboard” article supplements FLOW’s growing niche in the public trust and commons policy field.

In 2011, Olson and fellow public interest advocate, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians Maude Barlow, presented findings from their joint report on the public trust doctrine in an exclusive meeting with the binational regulating agency for the Great Lakes, the International Joint Commission (IJC). As journalist Keith Schneider wrote in his 2012 article about Olson and Barlow’s landmark presentation: “It was the first time that a framework for managing the Great Lakes as a commons had been presented at such a high government level in both nations.”

The public trust doctrine holds that certain natural resources like navigable waters are preserved in perpetuity for public use and enjoyment. Applying a banking analogy, the state serves as a trustee to maintain the trust or common resources for the benefit of current and future generations who are the beneficiaries. Just as private trustees are judicially accountable to their beneficiaries, so too are state trustees in managing public trust properties.

Because many citizens are not aware that the public trust doctrine is part of their bundle of rights in our democracy, many state actors ignore or violate these principles. It is the aim of the “All Aboard” article, as a supplement to FLOW’s programming, to help inform citizens and decision-makers of their rights and responsibilities to enjoy and preserve Great Lakes water for the benefit of the greater good.

Contact: Contact: Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director
liz@flowforwater.org or 231-944-1568

More Than a Christmas Miracle – The Successful Outcome of the Michigan Holy Water Mineral Leasing Issue for Fracking

Published on February 21st, 2014 by - News

By Tom Baird, FLOW Board of Directors member and First Vice President of the Anglers of the Au Sable

This article originally published in the Anglers of the Au Sable quarterly newsletter, THE RIVERWATCH, Winter 2014 Number 68. Click here to read the original article, or view it here. For more about Anglers of the Au Sable, click here to visit their website.

More Than a Christmas Miracle

The Successful Outcome of the Holy Water Mineral Leasing Issue Was
a Product of Shrewd Planning, Coalition Building and a Sense of Urgency

 

It was a tight clock, and there was a long way to pay dirt.

This football analogy best captures the circumstances Anglers faced last October as it became evident that the [Michigan] DNR was going to allow oil and gas companies to bid for leases on land interspersed throughout the heart of the Au Sable [River], its Holy Water. Worse, a third of those parcels were designated “development with restrictions,” which would allow the construction of production facilities and the installation of drilling rigs, storage tanks, compressors, and the other equipment necessary for oil and gas production. At first there was shock, then anger, but there wasn’t much time to dwell on either.

The task was daunting. Still, Anglers of the Au Sable had done the impossible before. Folks who were at the Grayling Ramada in August of 2003 remember the forest of hands that were raised when somebody said, “Who here thinks that oil well is going in on the South Branch no matter what we do?” at a public meeting concerning that crisis. Then there was Kolka Creek — not as dramatic as the Savoy case but maybe more important. The consensus was that Merit Energy would have a free hand in remediating the Hayes 22 facility.

In the end, we won, sometimes with the help of friends, sometimes on our own. Our record is not perfect, nobody’s is, but we know the rules of the game.

In the Holy Waters mineral leases fight, we twice asked DNR Director Creagh to remove the parcels from the October mineral rights auction. After our requests for reconsideration were denied our work was cut out.

First up was the gathering of personnel. We needed experts in communication, issue management, folks with knowledge and connections within the state government, especially the Department of Natural Resources, and, of course, attorneys. Several conference calls were held in short order to get the ball rolling.

We began a behind-the-scenes campaign, including communications from some of our well-placed members, to the DNR, Nature Resources Commission, DEQ, and Governor’s office. There were some weeks when the negotiations had the frenetic feel of a peace accord, but we stayed the course. It is important to remember that those folks involved were also working regular jobs, had family obligations, and were dealing with the same holiday mishmash as everybody else. There were times for some when sleep came at a premium. But we received important signals from key governmental officials that our request was meeting with approval – if we could keep the pressure on.

Next up came building a coalition. Fortunately, the outrageous nature of the DNR’s plan – some likened it to opening the Pictured Rocks or Sleeping Bear Dunes to oil and gas development – aided us in our recruitment. We had partnered with many of the same organizations on sundry causes before. In a very short time Michigan Trout Unlimited (plus two local chapters), the Sierra Club, Michigan League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation, Michigan Environmental Council, and the Au Sable Big Water Preservation Association were all on board.

It was decided that we needed to go further than the “usual suspects” this time. We were grateful for their support, but everybody involved, including all of them, knew that the extra mile was necessary if we hoped to succeed.

An extensive outreach effort was made to bring in several “non-traditional” partners. It worked better than expected. The City of Grayling, Grayling Township, property owners associations, the Au Sable River Watershed Committee, FLOW, recreation and real estate businesses, and, the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) all joined us. MUCC is an extremely important voice regarding conservation questions in Michigan, and having them with us added tremendous weight to our push.

A letter to the DNR Director was carefully crafted. In the end 17 groups, businesses and governmental bodies signed on to it. The letter was sent on December 6, 2013, and copied to any and all in government likely to have a say in the leasing decision.

Many of these organizations took up the reigns on their own, but always staying on message in a carefully coordinated plan of attack. Email blasts to their memberships were forwarded to friends and so on. Almost everybody knew within a day of two of operatives hitting the “send” button what the Holy Water lease issue was all about.

In the meantime, our Public Relations team put together maps, photos, articles and op-eds. We began planting stories with a selected group of reporters throughout the state including the Detroit News, Free Press, the Associated Press, and Michigan Public Radio. The Holy Water lease story was showing up everywhere. It put the oil and gas development issue on the agenda, and the whole thing started to resonate with the public.

And then it went viral. Citizens were now furthering what groups initiated. Perhaps the best example of this was from Robert Thompson, a member of Anglers who is a video producer in Chicago. Thompson was already working on a feature film concerning the Au Sable (watch for its release soon!) and had plenty of footage of the river. He created a 90 second collage of the Holy Water and superimposed the slogans from our “Save The Holy Waters Poster” while adding an affecting soundtrack. Now the cause had a polished, professional commercial (http://vimeo.com/81287261) rolling through the cyberspace.

The tables had turned dramatically in roughly a fortnight. In the public sphere the pressure was mounting with every Internet refresh. People from discrete backgrounds, many of which who were not the typical responders to this sort of thing, were making their views known to the powers-that-be. Thousands of emails and letters were sent to Director Creagh. Behind the scenes in a highly disciplined dance of advocacy our well-placed members were making headway.

And in the end it worked. As outlined in RIVERWATCH 67 (“DNR Director Creagh Joins Anglers in Saying ‘No Surface Development’ on Holy Water”) the Director relented. He allowed the leases, but only as “non-development” in the Holy Waters corridor. This was our objective: preventing development of oil and gas wells near this special piece of water.

Of course, the devil is in the details. We are now working with the DNR on lease language that will prevent changes in the surface use designation during the life of the leases. In addition, Director Creagh assigned his Manager of Mineral Leases to design a way to identify “special places” like the Holy Waters in advance, and, if they are nominated for lease, make it clear they will be non-development. That’s not all there is left to do by a long shot, but we’ve come a long way since last October.

To say that this outcome was one of the most successful efforts in the 27-year history of Anglers would be self-serving, but not necessarily any less true. Given the short window of time and the nature of the government in this right-of-center, “drill, baby, drill” era, it seemed unlikely that we could affect a favorable outcome. But we did more than that. Now there is dialogue. The issue of oil and gas leasing and fracking is far from resolved in our state. The path forward is not clear.

We have a blueprint, though, recently tested and found to be effective. It involves smart and committed people from varied backgrounds hammering out consensus. It involves new partners, who for the first time are seeing the downside of oil and gas development when allowed to proceed in places that are special. We need to keep the pressure on, through a campaign involving diverse voices from the conservation community, environmental groups, business and local government. It cannot succeed without respectful discourse with the decision makers. And, finally, it can only truly be effective when it has the support of the people.

So, you see, it’s really not self-serving to say this may have been one of the Anglers’ Finest Hours. It came about due to a hell of a lot of people putting in a hell of a lot of effort, and doing it in double time.

Thank you all!

FLOW’s Transparent Open Door Fracking Program

Published on February 20th, 2014 by - H2Olson

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” – Richard Feynman

As a non-partisan policy and education center focused on protecting the Great Lakes, FLOW undertakes projects and programs based on the demonstrated reality of problems needing resolution. Unequivocally, FLOW’s mission and sole motivation is to protect our common fresh water resources from permanent harm through education and empowerment of leaders and citizens.

Recently in several online articles, FLOW was misrepresented as an “anti-fracking” “advocacy” group. We were painted as “environmentalists” possessed by an ulterior motive to obstruct the existence of the oil and gas industry, writ large, through “backdoor” practices.

We would like to clarify for the public record that these characterizations are neither true nor reasonable. Rather, our program for local governments to address fracking impacts is an apolitical and pragmatic solution for communities who approach FLOW and voluntarily participate in the program. Our approach is based on factual information regarding the potential risks of fracking and oil and gas development, and what local governments can and cannot do. It is then up to local communities and citizens to identify their local concerns and implement the legal tools and ordinances that address those concerns.

Our method is to work transparently and in direct participation with citizens and officials involved in the issue and solution. This democratic, participatory approach to problem-solving is why we pursue both policy and education as a means of protecting the public interest and maintaining the quality and quantity of our public common waters.

Our program to address local impacts of fracking derives from our thorough and intensive legal analysis report on the topic. FLOW was prompted to investigate the impacts of fracking as it relates to freshwater consumption in the unconventional horizontal (also known as high-volume) fracking process, which in Michigan uses unprecedented volumes of water (more than 21 million gallons per frack well).

The water-intensive horizontal fracking technology we’re seeing proliferate throughout the U.S. is occurring in a vacuum of federal and state regulations, and the industry is exempt from several key water, air, land, and public health protections.

In the spirit of Feynman, we echo the sentiment that, in regards to this particular fracking technology, “reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” FLOW’s intention is to address the reality of fracking impacts as they affect nature and human health in our communities. Despite the fallacious clamoring from some sources that say we are advocates, Luddites, or otherwise in denial of modernity, we at FLOW are – and will remain to be – nonpartisan nonprofit consultants working to protect the public interest of our Great Lakes water.

A Heartfelt Thanks to Our Partners at FLOW

Published on February 17th, 2014 by - News

We have so many partnerships to be grateful for at FLOW, and in honor of Valentine’s Day, we’re taking time to say thanks, and invite others to join us. Just this year, several organizations have reached out to us because of our mission to protect the Great Lakes as a commons and offered their support with community benefit events. From the Yoga for Health Education and Pete Seeger Tribute Community Concert fundraiser events, to the Beans 4 Blue coffee benefit with Great Northern Roasting Company, to the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN) Site of the Month partnership, we all share a love for our precious common waters.

In January, for example, Yoga For Health Education owners Libby and Michael Robold in Traverse City graciously held a community yoga day to benefit FLOW.  And as a yoga teacher myself, I must say how impressed I was with the amazing teachers and ambiance of Yoga for Health Education at the Commons.

In March and April, Tim Joseph of the Spirit of the Woods Music and Gretchen Eichberger from the Northwest Michigan Folklife Center are organizing three separate Pete Seeger Tribute Community Concerts in Northern Lower Michigan, with proceeds to benefit FLOW. Pete Seeger was a real hero to us all, inspiring us with music to promote social justice and to protect our air, water, and land for current and future generations. The first Pete Seeger Tribute Concert will be held in Northern Manistee County on March 15, the next one will take place at the Mills Community House in Benzonia on March 23, and a final one will be in Traverse City in late April.  Stay tuned for more details about these upcoming events on our website https://forloveofwater.org/event/

Other wonderful news to celebrate is the brand new roll out of Great Northern Roasting Company’s (GRNC) Beans 4 Blue Coffee line with three blends: (1) the original Lake Effect blend, (2) the Wake 5 dark roast, and (3) the Shoreline light roast. All three blends are now on the shelves at grocers throughout Michigan’s lower peninsula and three percent of every bag sold benefits FLOW.  How lucky are we to have connected with GRNC owners Jack and Sarah Davis to celebrate organic fair trade gorgeous coffee and support Great Lakes water policy work, with 3% of sales proceeds donated to FLOW.

And just this month, the Great Lakes Commission-based Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN) named FLOW their Site of the Month for February.  As a GLIN partner, FLOW is honored and delighted to contribute to their outstanding resource network.  GLIN’s website feature comes at an auspicious time as FLOW is celebrating our one-year anniversary of our website today.

GLIN is a critical resource for the multi-jurisdictional agencies, organizations, and resources dedicated to managing and protecting the Great Lakes.  And such a resource is needed more than ever before so that we can effectively partner and collaborate to meet the grave challenges, systemic lake-wide threats like invasive species, algal blooms, dead zones, climate change, water levels, pollution, and many others.  It’s time to empower leaders and citizens across these great lakes with a new vision that protects our commons waters as a legacy for future generations – that’s what we’re about at FLOW. If you have an idea for partnering with FLOW, contact us at https://forloveofwater.org/great-lakes-partners/ and we hope that you join us in protecting these 20% of the world’s freshwater, now and forever.

Beans4Blue Coffee Now in Three Blends at Stores Statewide

Published on February 11th, 2014 by - Reports & Media Releases

Click here to view and download the full press release as a PDF

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director, FLOW
liz@flowforwater.org or 231-944-1568
or
Jack Davis, Owner, Great Northern Roasting Company
jack@greatnoroco.com or 231-943-3917

Beans4Blue Coffee Now in Three Blends at Stores Statewide

3% of Sales to Benefit the FLOW Great Lakes Policy and Education Center

TRAVERSE CITY, MI – A new series of three coffee blends aims to caffeinate and conserve water for Great Lakes lovers. The Beans 4 Blue coffee line from Traverse City-based Great Northern Roasting Company (GNRC) has three blends: the original Lake Effect blend, the Wake 5 dark roast, and the Shoreline light roast. All three blends are now on the shelves at grocers throughout Michigan’s lower peninsula. Three percent of every bag benefits FLOW, a Traverse City-based policy and education center working to protect the Great Lakes.

All three blends of Beans 4 Blue by Great Northern Roasting Company will now benefit FLOW

All three blends of Beans 4 Blue by Great Northern Roasting Company will now benefit FLOW

The GNRC has been roasting and selling coffee beans since 2001 when it was founded by Jack and Sarah Davis. GNRC is dedicated to providing the most exclusive and unique coffees, all of which are drum roasted by hand and held to the highest standard in quality and freshness. Embedded within their business standards is Jack and Sarah Davis’s love for the Great Lakes. Now with three blends available in the Beans 4 Blue coffee line, the GNRC is happy to announce that their customers can join them to help protect the Great Lakes.

“After all, coffee is just filtered water” says GNRC Owner Jack Davis, “and you just won’t get a good cup of coffee without fresh, clean water. That’s why we decided to create a product that includes protecting the Great Lakes as a part of the bottom line.” Teaming up with the Traverse City-based nonprofit FLOW “was a no-brainer” says Mr. Davis, because of their common goal to protect the Great Lakes.

FLOW’s mission is to advance solutions to save the Great Lakes and their expert team of attorneys and professionals specialize in the legal strategies known as the public trust doctrine. Through educational presentations and advanced policy research, FLOW develops legal strategies that all add up to better protections for the waters of the Great Lakes.

“Sometimes folks can feel helpless when big issues threaten to harm the Great Lakes,” says FLOW Executive Director Liz Kirkwood, “and that’s where FLOW comes in, to empower people with tools for taking action that will ultimately create a better future for these waters.”

This rang true and captured the attention of Mr. Davis, whose daughter goes to the same school in Traverse City as both of Mrs. Kirkwood’s kids. A longtime vision that had yet to come to life, Mr. Davis had always wanted to find a way for his company to give back to the community. When he learned about FLOW’s action-oriented policy and education programs that address Great Lakes issues, “right away I knew that we should collaborate to create a coffee that benefits the Great Lakes,” he says. And so, Beans 4 Blue was created.

The first Beans 4 Blue coffee, the Lake Effect blend, premiered in stores in late fall of 2013. Now, GNRC is in full-tilt production and fulfilling requests for Lake Effect blend as well as the new dark roast, Wake 5 blend, and the light roast, Shoreline blend. All blends of the Beans 4 Blue Coffee are 100% shade grown Arabica, and Rainforest Alliance certified.

Not unlike FLOW’s educational programs, and in the spirit of ensuring an excellent coffee experience to customers, GNRC also offers informational workshops on coffee, roasting, tasting, and human and economic impact of global coffee markets. GNRC specializes in direct trade and fair trade, and are committed to upholding the highest standards for human and labor rights as well as environmental protection, including biodiversity and sustainability.

For more information, to find a store near you that carries Beans 4 Blue, or to place an online order, please visit: http://beans4blue.com

Contact: Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director, FLOW
liz@flowforwater.org or 231-944-1568
or
Jack Davis, Owner, Great Northern Roasting Company
jack@greatnoroco.com or 231-943-3917

FLOW Local Ordinance Program Addresses Fracking Impacts in Conway Township, MI

Published on February 10th, 2014 by - Reports & Media Releases

FLOW Founder Jim Olson addresses Conway Township Fracking Issues

Click here to view and download the full press release as a PDF

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director
liz@flowforwater.org or 231-944-1568

FLOW Local Ordinance Program Addresses Fracking Impacts in Conway Township, MI

Over 100 Citizens Attend FLOW Presentation

FOWLERVILLE, MI – In February of 2014, Conway Township signed up as the third township to participate in FLOW’s Local Ordinance program that helps the township develop regulatory ordinances to address potential risks and impacts of high volume hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for oil and gas. On February 6th, FLOW Executive Director Liz Kirkwood and FLOW Founder Jim Olson delivered the first of two public presentations to educate and empower Conway Township leaders and residents about the associated risks and impacts of fracking and specific legal strategies to consider.

Held at the Alverson Center for Performing Arts in Fowlerville, the presentation drew an estimated crowd of almost 150 citizens and leaders who came to learn about horizontal fracking developments in Michigan since 2010, potential risks and impacts, and viable legal strategies to regulate fracking impacts as part of FLOW’s ordinance program for Conway Township. FLOW works with the township to determine what areas of concern are most pertinent to the community to regulate, and the public presentations dually serve as a forum for citizens and leaders to express the topics they hope local legal strategies can address.

“The turnout was impressive,” says Olson, “and the citizens demonstrated not only a real concern but a remarkable knowledge of the issues and context of fracking in Michigan and in their own community.” The GeoSouthern Energy Corporation drilled an exploratory well in Conway Township, granted by a 2013 permit. The permit approved three million gallons of water and fracking fluid to explore a one-mile radius area. The exploratory well is located on a property that, according to the owner in a Denver Post article from September 2013, was drilled three times in the past 30 years without success.

The February 6th presentation in Fowlerville was the first of two public presentations FLOW will host for Conway Township. Then, the FLOW staff will carefully craft a package of recommendations for Township leaders to consider incorporating into their local ordinances and laws as they see fit.

FLOW Founder Jim Olson addresses Conway Township Fracking Issues

FLOW Founder Jim Olson addresses Conway Township Fracking Issues. Photo (c) FLOW/Liz Kirkwood

“The fracking process is largely under-regulated or exempt from key federal and state laws that protect common water, land, air, and public health,” says Kirkwood. “The local governments are left holding the bag when it comes to protecting their citizens from the potential harms and risks of the fracking process or any other industrial processes that come to their town. Our program empowers local governments and their citizens to prepare themselves in advance to handle it,” she says.

Fracking for oil and natural gas is exempt from many regulatory laws at both the federal and state levels, including the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts, the Great Lakes Compact, and Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Act. Despite zoning prohibitions to regulate drilling, construction production, and operation of oil and gas wells, townships still do maintain legal authority to regulate ancillary activities, including roads, truck traffic, pipelines, flow lines, gathering lines, location of wells, disclosure of chemical use, air pollution and more. Moreover, townships can rely on other sources of authority such as police power ordinances and franchise agreements.

FLOW has delivered a similar educational overview to over twenty communities throughout Michigan in the past year. This informational presentation is based on FLOW’s November 2012 report, “Horizontal Fracturing for Oil and Natural Gas in Michigan: Legal Strategies and Tools for Communities and Citizens.” FLOW’s report highlights legal strategies and policies designed to assist local governments in safeguarding their communities against the unprecedented and cumulative impacts of fracking.

Horizontal fracking requires injecting a cocktail of up to 21 million gallons of water and over 750 chemicals under high pressure into wells in order to fracture deep shale formations and release oil and natural gas. A review of literature on fracking and its associated risks reveals several concerns: (1) massive water withdrawals; (2) groundwater contamination; (3) surface spills and leaks; (4) wastewater management; (5) land-use impacts; (6) truck traffic and burden on infrastructure; (7) lack of public disclosure.

An op-ed piece from January 12, 2014 the news service LivingstonDaily.com published outlined that, no matter where Conway Township officials and citizens choose to draw their party lines in regards to fracking, “there clearly can be an impact on the surrounding community where fracking is conducted, and it is more than fair for the local communities to have some controls in place to make sure they are minimal.”

The next FLOW public workshop for Conway Township will be held in late March, early April.  Conway Township like many of the neighboring townships in Livingston County is interested in proactively protecting the area’s valuable natural resources for agriculture and high quality of life. To ensure different viewpoints on this topic, Conway Township has invited the Department of Environmental Quality to speak to local officials about its permitting role for the oil and gas industry this coming week of February 10.

Contact:
Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director
liz@flowforwater.org or 231-944-1568

LivingstonDaily.com: ‘Fracking’ authority debate ignites

Published on February 9th, 2014 by - News

Click here to read the article on LivingstonDaily.com

‘Fracking’ authority debate ignites

By Christopher Behnan

February 9, 2014

FOWLERVILLE, MI – Fighting big oil would be a costly proposition for any local government.

That doesn’t mean local officials don’t have legal ground to challenge drilling operations, including those that use hydraulic fracturing to maximize oil and gas extraction from rock formations, environmental officials said last week.

That’s particularly the case when drilling that uses high-volume “fracking” transports hazardous materials on public roads, disrupts peaceful communities or draws millions of gallons of water from local water supplies, they added.

The ability of local governments to regulate drilling operations has been front and center since Texas-based GeoSouthern Energy Corp. received a state drilling permit allowing injection of 3 million gallons of water, sand and chemicals on private property in Conway Township.

Environmental groups, including Traverse City-based For Love of Water, the state Department of Environmental Quality and the oil and gas industry often have different views on the local-rule issue.

Each is armed with voluminous case law they claim supports its views.

Last week, FLOW gave Conway Township and other local officials an overview of hydraulic fracturing in Michigan and discussed local ordinances it said empower local governments.

FLOW Chairman Jim Olson said local governments have a host of regulatory powers over drilling sites, including under Michigan’s Zoning Enabling Act and state law that favors public health and safety over commercial interests.

State law doesn’t allow local governments to regulate the location of drilling projects or prohibit drilling practices, including hydraulic fracturing, but does allow regulation of noise, air pollution, use of hazardous substances, Olson said.

“You can actually pass ordinances and regulate pretty much any activity that causes interference with the use and enjoyment of property of the community lands and parks and schools,” Olson said.

Because the zoning act only prohibits regulation of drilling wells, local governments also can regulate several “ancillary activities” such as related storage, chemical mixing, pumping activities and truck traffic, Olson added. He said local officials can require site plans from oil and gas companies for their projects.

He said local governments can require drilling permit applicants to submit environmental impact statements to local units under Michigan’s Environmental Protection Act.

Current law doesn’t require oil or gas companies to disclose chemicals used in the fracking process, but officials can require disclosure of chemicals transported on local roads, he added.

“You can say, ‘Well, here’s our roads. You’re going to have to tell us what you’re hauling on these roads and what you’re disposing,” while using the roads, Olson said.

DEQ oversight of operations

Exclusion of drilling oversight in the zoning act leaves jurisdiction over drilling and related operations such as fracking in the hands of the director of the state Department of Environmental Quality, said Adam Wygant, section chief with the DEQ’s Office of Oil, Gas and Minerals.

Wygant on Wednesday will discuss oil and gas operations with Livingston County officials.

Local governments have a say when oil and gas companies want to establish ancillary operations, such as treatment or equipment-storage facilities separate from drilling sites, however, he added.

Local officials can pass bans and moratoriums, but they will not be enforced under current law because the DEQ director, as Michigan’s supervisor of wells, has exclusive oversight of drilling operations, Wygant said.

“We believe our authority is what it is and what has been upheld by case law,” he said.

FLOW’s Olson said it’s possible, but unlikely, for local officials to impose a ban or moratorium on drilling or fracking. That’s in large part because private landowners have the right to lease their lands as they see fit, Olson said.

He said townships would have to prove there is no way to allow hydraulic fracturing anywhere within its boundaries without harming the health and safety of residents.

“You would have to prove that in court, so it’s a pretty tough burden,” Olson said.

FLOW recommended that Conway Township consider drafting several ordinances, including requiring notification of drilling permits to the public and Board of Trustees before drilling begins; requiring companies to pay for water testing for residents within 2 miles of drilling sites before work begins; and requiring a road bond for possible repairs on company truck routes.

The DEQ in October announced proposed rules based on residents’ concerns about hydraulic fracturing, including installation of monitor wells and water sampling in certain conditions; notification to the state if hydraulic fracturing is expected to be used; and disclosure of chemical properties and concentrations used.

Environmental groups were not satisfied with the DEQ’s proposal.

Contact Daily Press & Argus reporter Christopher Behnan at 517-548-7108 or at cbehnan@gannett.com. Follow him @LCLansingGuy on Twitter.

Enbridge Under the Bridge: What We Do and Don’t Know about the Underwater Oil Pipeline in the Great Lakes

Published on February 7th, 2014 by - H2Olson, News

FLOW Executive Director Liz Kirkwood

FLOW Executive Director Liz Kirkwood

FLOW and a number of organizations have come together over the last year to rally the public and raise awareness about the Canadian energy company Enbridge and their Line 5 pipeline, a 61-year-old pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac in the Great Lakes which has increased in flow and pipeline pressure and poses a great risk to our common water. On February 5, I carpooled up to St. Ignace, Michigan to attend a public meeting wherein Enbridge delivered a presentation to Mackinac County officials (and a packed room full of concerned citizens) to assuage growing concerns about the Line 5 pipeline expansion. My companions Jim Dulzo from Michigan Land Use Institute, FLOW intern Jonathan Aylward and I didn’t know what to expect, but we certainly all had a lot of questions that remained unanswered.

Background: The issue captured our attention after a critical 2012 report from National Wildlife Federation (NWF) titled Sunken Hazardpublished the scary facts: if Line 5 were to leak, then in the eight minutes that it takes for Enbridge to shut off the pipeline about 1.5 million gallons of oil would release, along with catastrophic impacts and dispersion across both Lakes Michigan and Huron. However, this is not even the “worse case discharge” given that it took the same company, Enbridge, 17 hours to respond to the worse inland oil pipeline spill in U.S. history along the Kalamazoo River just 3 years ago.  In short, the Great Lakes have never been more at risk and yet the public is largely uninformed.

Why FLOW is concerned:

  1. We know that Enbridge has “upgraded” Line 5 with new pump stations but we don’t know for sure what “product” (light or heavy, sweet or sour, dilbit, etc) is being transported 640 miles from Superior, Wisconsin through the Straits of Mackinac to Sarnia, Ontario;
  2. Heavy tar sands is the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive energy on earth and a spill would destroy our shared international waters and way of life;
  3. This “upgraded” pipeline is 61-years-old and is submerged under water in the heart of the Great Lakes that contains 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water;
  4. Enbridge has a dismal pipeline safety record, underscored by the two recent heavy tar sands disasters in Marshall, Michigan along the Kalamazoo River (1 million gallons spilled in 2010) and Grand Marsh, Wisconsin (50,000 gallons spilled in 2012);
  5. Federal pipeline regulations do not provide for public disclosure in the event of a product change from light crude oil to heavy crude oil for example; and
  6. An unsettling feeling of lack of transparency and public disclosure about the safety of Line 5 for the Great Lakes.

The Enbridge “side of the story”

At 2 pm at Little Bear Arena in St. Ignace, Mackinac County Planning Commission (“the Commission”) Chairman Dean Reid stood before 175 people, amazed at the turnout, and explained the rationale for this special meeting. The fact of the matter was that the Commission “wanted to hear Enbridge’s side of the story” after receiving NWF’s Sunken Hazard, and video footage of the submerged Line 5 under the Straits of Mackinac. Interestingly, though, I learned from Beth Wallace at NWF who co-authored the report that the Commission did not invite NWF to participate as a panelist to publically present both points of view.

Commission officials and the audience listen to the Enbridge representatives' presentation.

Commission officials and the audience listen to the Enbridge representatives’ presentation.

Chairman Reid laid out the agenda, calling for Enbridge to address the integrity of their Line 5 pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac, the frequency of their testing, and emergency procedures in the event of a pipeline rupture. Recognizing the potential regional impact a spill would have in the Straits, the Commission invited other local units of government and organizations to attend this meeting. No public comments were allowed, but Enbridge panelists read and answer cards with written questions.

Next came Enbridge Community Relations Director Jackie Guthrie who described herself as a mom but also as a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army. She gave the audience a succinct and compelling PR presentation on Enbridge’s overall operations. “Think of Enbridge as the ‘Fed-Ex’ of the oil and gas industry,” she cleverly described, “Enbridge delivers 2.5 billion barrels of crude and liquid petroleum, 5 billion cubic/feet of natural gas, and 1,600 MW of renewable energy a day.” Her numbers underscored the amazing recent growth of this billion-dollar company coinciding with North America’s energy boom. For example, in the last seven years, Enbridge had doubled its employees to 11,000. Guthrie concluded her overview by noting that Enbridge was recognized as one of the Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World.

This last claim got me thinking: if Enbridge can get that level of praise despite its shocking track record of 800 pipeline spills in the U.S. and Canada between 1999 and 2010, leaking 6.8 million gallons of oil and causing the largest inland heavy tar sands rupture in U.S. history, I wonder what the other energy companies are like.

Guthrie described the Line 5 as a 650-mile pipeline originating in Superior, Wisconsin traveling across the Upper Peninsula across the Straits of Michigan and down to Sarnia, Ontario. Line 5 is a 30-inch pipeline, except across the Straits where it divides into two 20-inch pipelines. Guthrie emphasized that Line 5 was carrying “light crude oil” which has “the consistency of skim milk.”

The view driving across the Mackinac Bridge: the Enbridge Line 5 oil pipeline is submerged beneath the same Straits of Mackinac that the Bridge traverses.

The view driving across the Mackinac Bridge: the Enbridge Line 5 oil pipeline is submerged beneath the same Straits of Mackinac that the Bridge traverses.

Blake Olson, Enbridge’s Escanaba Area Manager for over 400 miles of Line 5, followed with a presentation on the integrity of the Line 5 pipeline. He described Line 5 in the Straits as a one-inch thick seamless steel pipe, build with such a robust design that they just don’t build pipelines like this anymore. In fact, Olson commented that Line 5 at the Straits is the thickest pipeline in North America. Since 2012, Enbridge had increased the flow or volume of the product by 10 percent. Then he made the case that Enbridge had made a number of significant upgrades in their leak detection system within the last couple of years, including:

  • automatic shut-off valves at both sides of the Straits,
  • replacement of St. Ignace Valve Yard (2011) and Valve Yard containment system (2012),
  • the on-going installation of emergence flow restriction devices,
  • a back-up electric generator installed in 2013, and
  • a thermally imaging leak detection system to be installed this year.

In addition, Olson described Enbridge’s integrity protective system along Line 5, which included corrosion prevention with coal tar coating and cathodic protection, anchor strike prevention and brackets every 50 feet (coming this summer), monitoring with internal and external pipeline inspections, lighted shore signage and nautical charts stating DO NOT ANCHOR.

Too little, too late?

This was an impressive list to the casual listener/observer, but what troubled me was that a lot of these basic safety protections to ensure pipeline protection were recently instituted and this pipeline was 61-years-old. For example, in the 61 years of this pipeline’s history, the U.S. Coast Guard did not have nautical charts informing vessels about the very location of Line 5 until January 2014.  This change only happened because a number of concerned Michigan groups met with the Governor’s office to discuss Line 5’s safety in December 2013.

Olson assured the audience that Enbridge’s integrity program demonstrated that Line 5 under the Straits was “fit for service” with no dents or anomalies and met all federal pipeline regulations.

Before the Q&A session, Enbridge invited its contractor Bill Hazel from Marine Pollution Control to provide an overview of the emergency response measures set in place in the event of catastrophic spill on Line 5 under the Lakes. Hazel pointed to a number of simulated winter emergency response drills that Enbridge had participated in or serves as the lead in 2008, 2012, 2013, and this year. What became crystal clear was how catastrophic a Line 5 rupture would be especially during the wintertime. One follow-up question captured our imagination of this seemingly impossible mission: ‘May day, May day, May day!  It’s January 21, 2014 and it’s -9 °F and the wind chill is -25 °F, the Straits of Mackinac are frozen over, the ice four feet deep, and Line 5 has ruptured under the ice.  What are you going to do about it?’

Left to right: Jim Dulzo, MLUI; Jonathan Aylward, FLOW; Lee Sprague, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians; Anne Zukowski, Don't Frack Michigan; Jannan Cornstalk, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians

Left to right: Jim Dulzo, MLUI; Jonathan Aylward, FLOW; Lee Sprague, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians; Anne Zukowski, Don’t Frack Michigan; Jannan Cornstalk, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians

Enbridge answers (some) public questions

Following a final word from the local emergency manager in Mackinac, Guthrie gathered the 5×7 questions cards, proceeded to sort them into piles, and distributed them to the appropriate Enbridge representative for answers at the podium. Several illuminating points came out:

  1. Line 5 only transports light crude oil, the consistency of skim milk.
  2. Line 5’s light crude oil currently comes the Bakken oil fields.
  3. There are no plans to pump heavy crude oil through Line 5.
  4. Seamless pipe wasn’t really a seamless pipe as Enbridge had described previously, rather Line 5’s two 20-inch pipelines are seamless only up to the joints that repeat every 40 feet along the 4-mile stretch along the bottomlands of the Straits.
  5. A wintertime spill would present unprecedented challenges in mounting an emergency response.
  6. If a rupture occurred and the automatic shut-off valves turned off in a 3-minute period, 5,500 barrels would be released and disperse over an area 25-square-miles wide.  This number was down considerably from 15,000 barrels before Enbridge installed the automatic shut-off valves.

The last question was: ‘If tar sands were being transported through Line 5, what pipeline changes would Enbridge have to make?’ Enbridge’s Guthrie pulled the card aside and said, “let me hold off on this question because it is complex.”  But time was on Guthrie’s side as the meeting ended sharply at 3:30 pm and she never had to answer this telling question.

The composed Midwestern temperament of the room quickly changed as audience members shouted out that their questions had not been answered.  But it was clear that the meeting was over.

The bottom line for the bottomlands

I walked out into the 12 °F air, looked out over the Straits and felt an urgent need for additional public forums in Mackinac and the Great Lakes to further educate and inform all walks of life who live here about Line 5. Enbridge had attempted to calm the public’s concerns about Line 5, but they hadn’t been entirely forthright and it bothered me. Without public transparency, we will need to engage the State of Michigan to assert its authority as trustee of the waters and bottomlands of the Great Lakes for the benefit of the public.

What I’m talking about is the public trust doctrine, which legally requires Governor Snyder and both the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental Quality, as state trustees, to ensure that Enbridge’s Line 5 under the Straits will not impair the public waters of the Great Lakes. This means that the State must demand full transparency and disclosure of all Enbridge’s activities not only for the people within range of a potential catastrophic spill, but for all residents of Michigan. Thus, if and when Enbridge decided to transport any type of heavy tar sands oil through Line 5, Enbridge has a duty to inform the state and the public and secure proper authorization under the Great Lands Submerged Lands Act. That’s FLOW’s take on the issue, and it’s what you will be hearing more about in the weeks and months to come. Stay tuned.

LivingstonDaily.com: ‘A lot at stake’ for locals regarding fracking rules

Published on February 7th, 2014 by - News

Click here to read the article on LivingstonDaily.com

‘A lot at stake’ for locals regarding fracking rules

Environmental group discusses options at Fowlerville meeting

A note from FLOW Chair Jim Olson to clarify – At the meeting, FLOW did say townships could undertake a ban, however we specified that it would be difficult to defend a ban, although you cannot preclude some circumstances where it may well be proper, because there is no place suitable where it could occur. But it is more likely, and better, that these issues and concerns are based on a case-by-case review through a zoning special use permit or other similar proceeding under the zoning or a police power ordinance.

By Christopher Behnan

February 6, 2014

FOWLERVILLE, MI – Local governments can use existing law and amend their own rules to regulate — if not outright ban — hydraulic fracturing in their backyards, For Love of Water representatives told local officials Thursday.

For Love of Water, or FLOW, was hired by Conway Township to discuss local rights after a Texas oil giant was permitted to inject 3 million gallons of water, sand and chemicals to maximize the potential recovery of natural gas at a local farm property.

FLOW Chairman Jim Olson said Michigan’s Zoning Enabling Act — which does not allow prohibition of drilling projects — empowers local governments to regulate everything from noise, hazardous materials and air pollution, to chemical mixing, storage and pumping activities at drilling sites.

Jim Olson, chairman of For Love of Water, explains the possible legal approaches that might be taken to regulate hydraulic fracturing, or 'fracking,' Thursday evening at the Alverson Center for Performing Arts at Fowlerville High School. / ALAN WARD/DAILY PRESS & ARGUS

Jim Olson, chairman of For Love of Water, explains the possible legal approaches that might be taken to regulate hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking,’ Thursday evening at the Alverson Center for Performing Arts at Fowlerville High School. / ALAN WARD/DAILY PRESS & ARGUS

Olson said local governments also can require environmental-impact statements and bonding for some activities, and address concerns such as lighting and dust control on local roads.

“Local communities have a lot at stake, and the question we started asking about a year-and-a-half ago was, ‘What can local units do?’ ” Olson explained.

“This is all basic stuff to address what is coming,” he added.

Local governments, in defending the public’s health and safety, could have legal standing to ban or place moratoriums on fracking but would face much bigger legal challenges, Olson added.

Just over 100 people attended Thursday’s session, which was intended to educate local leaders on high-volume hydraulic fracturing and their legal ability to regulate drilling-related activities in their communities.

FLOW will ultimately deliver a legal analysis based on Conway Township’s concerns, then leave it to the township attorney to draft ordinances.

FLOW Executive Director Liz Kirkwood said the Conway site is one of 52 permitted projects that allow high-volume fracturing to tap oil or natural gas reserves.

Kirkwood said large volumes of local water usage for projects and hauling of “flowback” water from wells should be of top concern to local leaders.

“This is just another industrial use that is coming to your town,” Kirkwood said.

Cohoctah Township resident Arnie Nowicki asks a question about water quality during Thursday evening's meeting in Fowlerville. / ALAN WARD/DAILY PRESS & ARGUS

Cohoctah Township resident Arnie Nowicki asks a question about water quality during Thursday evening’s meeting in Fowlerville. / ALAN WARD/DAILY PRESS & ARGUS

John Simaz, a spokesman for the oil and gas industry, accused FLOW of using “backdoor” methods to attack a decades-old, environmentally safe practice that creates jobs and boosts the economy.

Olson noted that high-volume projects only emerged in Michigan a few years ago.

About 20 wells have been drilled in Michigan using high-volume hydraulic fracturing over the past few years.

Texas-based GeoSouthern Energy Corp. in September was issued the high-volume drilling permit in Conway.

GeoSouthern’s permit allows the company to drill about 4,400 feet into the ground and about 1 mile horizontally into a geological formation known as A-1 carbonate starting on resident Jack Sherwood’s farm property off Fowlerville Road.

Sherwood has said he doesn’t expect the process to yield much. His farm property has been drilled three other times over the past 30 years, and in all cases, the drills came up dry.

GeoSouthern to date has drilled an exploratory well and is awaiting results of rock samples that will determine whether there is enough product to justify the expense of hydraulic fracturing.

Results of the samples aren’t expected for at least another three weeks.

Contact Daily Press & Argus reporter Christopher Behnan at 517-548-7108 or at cbehnan@gannett.com. Follow him @LCLansingGuy on Twitter.